Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 32
(PS) Alfaro Brittany v. Ice Cube et al
as 2:2026cv02164
Plaintiff: Michella C. Alfaro Brittany
Defendant: Ice Cube and Easy E
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Emrit, et al. v. Dogg, et al.
as 26-1803
Plaintiff: RONALD SATISH EMRIT, United Emrits of America, SATISH DAT BEAST, Former Client of Larry Birkhead Attorney Nancy Hass of Hallandale Beach, Florida as Family Law Attorney and others
Defendant: SNOOP DOGG, Marijuana Smoker named Calvin Broadus, STATE OF ARIZONA, The Only State Which Did not Approve of the Holiday for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, NBCUNIVERSAL, LLC and others
Emrit v. Dogg, et al.
as 26-1494
Plaintiff: RONALD SATISH EMRIT, aka Satish Dat Beast, aka Go Go Stish and United Emrits of America
Defendant: SNOOP DOGG, (Marijuana Smoker named Calvin Broadus); Snoop Doggy Dog Bowl in Arizona, STATE OF ARIZONA, (The Only State Which Did not Approve of the Holiday for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior), NBCUNIVERSAL, LLC and others
Emrit v. Dogg, et al.
as 26-1503
Plaintiff: RONALD SATISH EMRIT and United Emrits of America
Defendant: SNOOP DOGG, (Marijuana Smoker named Calvin Broadus), STATE OF ARIZONA, (The Only State Which Did not Approve of the Holiday for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, NBCUNIVERSAL, LLC and others
Emrit v. Snoop Doggy Dogg, et al
as 26-4019
Plaintiff: RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Defendant: SNOOP DOGGY DOGG, SNOOP DOGGY DOGG BOWL IN ARIZONA, THE RACIST STATE OF ARIZONA and others
Emrit v. Melber et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2026cv00254
Plaintiff: Ronald Satish Emrit, Satish Dat Beast and Go Go Satish
Defendant: Ari Melber, Universal Music Group, NBC Universal and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Emrit, et al. v. Dogg, et al.
as 26-884
Plaintiff: RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Former Client of "Larry Birkhead Attorney" Nancy Hass of Hallandale Beach, Florida as Family Law Attorney, United Emrits of America, SATISH DAT BEAST, Former Client of Paul Gardner, Esquire of Gardner Law Group of Baltimore, Maryland as Entertainment Attorney for Outkast, Mya, Mos Def, Tommy Davidson, and Salahis and others
Defendant: SNOOP DOGG, Marijuana Smoker named Calvin Broadus, SNOOP DOGG, Bowl in Arizona, The Racist STATE OF ARIZONA, The Only State Which Did not Approve of the Holiday for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior and others
Emrit, et al v. Snoop Doggy Dogg, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 26-1037
Plaintiff: RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Former Client of Paul Gardner, Esquire of Gardner Law Group of Baltimore, Maryland as Entertainment Attorney for Outkast, Mya, Mos Def, Tommy Davidson and Salahis, SATISH DAT BEAST, Former Client of Larry Birkhead Attorney Nancy Hass of Hallandale Beach Florida as Family Law Attorney and GO GO SATISH, Former Client of Thomas Hart, Esquire of On The Potomac of Washington, DC and Holand & Knight, LLP and Entertainment Attorney for Gloria Estefan and James Todd Smith also Known as LL Cool J
Defendant: SNOOP DOGGY DOGG, Marijuana Smoker named Calvin Broadus, SNOOP DOGGY DOGG BOWL IN ARIZONA, THE RACIST STATE OF ARIZONA, The Only State Which Did not Approve of the Holiday for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior and others
Emrit et al v. Doggy Dogg We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2026cv00464
Plaintiff: Go Go Satish, Ronald Satish Emrit, Satish Dat Beast and others
Defendant: Snoop Doggy Dogg, Snoop Doggy Dogg Bowl in Arizona, The Racist State of Arizona and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2672 pi Federal Tort Claim Act - Personal Injury
Satish Dat Beast et al v. Snoop Doggy Dogg et al
as 2:2026cv00286
Plaintiff: Go Go Satish, Satish Dat Beast, Ronald Satish Emrit and others
Defendant: Snoop Doggy Dogg, Snoop Doggy Dogg Bown in Arizona, The Racist State of Arizona and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?